hyperliquid

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses cost ($0.0045 USDC per call), p99 latency (1500ms), and the default-return behavior when coins is omitted. It stops short of stating rate limits, retry/failure behavior, or whether unknown tickers are silently dropped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and dense with no filler sentences; every clause carries information. The opening repeats itself slightly ('Hyperliquid Perps Data — Hyperliquid perpetual futures market data'), a minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in by enumerating returned fields and stating cost/latency, which is the right allocation of effort for a read-only market-data tool. It does not explain the response shape (per-coin array, ordering, units) or behavior on invalid tickers, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% — only 'coins' is documented in the schema — but the description compensates by covering both params and, crucially, the interaction rule that limit is 'used without coins', which the schema does not express. Valid ranges (max 50; 1–50, default 10) are restated, which is redundant but harmless.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names a specific resource and scope ('Hyperliquid perpetual futures market data') and enumerates the exact fields returned — mark/oracle price, 24h change, funding rate and APR, open interest, volume, max leverage. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like crypto_prices, though it never explicitly positions itself against perp_funding, which overlaps on funding-rate data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives conditional usage for the parameters ('Pass coins ... or omit them to get the top markets by open interest'), which is genuinely helpful. However there is no tool-level when-to-use guidance telling the agent when to reach for this instead of perp_funding or crypto_prices, so routing still requires inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.